Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

What Canon UWA landscape lense?

profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
So i have a t4i (aps-c sensor) and am really loving taking landscapes and getting large prints of my work. I am needing to step up to a sharper lense to accompany the large prints i am doing and also want something a bit wider than my kit lense.

I will upgrade to a full frame camera in 2-3 years.

I would really love to stick with canon L series, but am willing to buy other company lenses as long as they are sharp.


price range: 600~

So right now i am wanting to buy a canon 17-40mm f/4 L lense, but it wouldn't be quite as wide as i would like. But once i get a full frame it will be a perfect landscape lense so i could just use it for the next few years and make do.

OR

I could buy a Tokina 11-16 (or any other UWA lense you guys would suggest in my price range) and use it until i upgrade to Full Frame and then buy a canon 17-40 or 16-35.


Please suggest any lense options that would be ideal and offer advice of what you would do. Please don't suggest a lense unless you have experience with it or know somebody that has! Thanks NS!
Aug 20 2013 8:41PM
39 15
profile picture
JuliusJ
Posts: 3778 - Karma: 2,106
17-40 f/4 if you want L glass. Or buy my 11-16 Tokina.
Aug 20 2013 8:57PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61604 - Karma: 123,113
Lens.


Lens.


Lens.

Jesus
Aug 20 2013 9:21PM
9 2
profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
Indeed.


Thanks for the advice
Aug 20 2013 9:29PM
4 0
profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
I might be interested in a few weeks when I have money
Aug 20 2013 11:40PM
2 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,246
17-40
Aug 21 2013 12:07AM
1 1
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
They are all crap, zeiss 18mm
Aug 21 2013 12:20AM
1 1
profile picture
Laurent.
Posts: 10056 - Karma: 25,313
The Angenieux 5.3-61 mm f1.9 lens.

Click for larger image
Aug 21 2013 5:30AM
4 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Just ditch your t4i, but a 5Dc and get a 17-40.
I still don't get UWA for landscape thing, but whatever...
Aug 21 2013 12:11PM
0 0
profile picture
gusestomp
Posts: 1377 - Karma: 746
he obviously wants the dope looking distortion around the edges
Aug 21 2013 2:01PM
0 5
profile picture
Shukovski
Posts: 470 - Karma: 433
5.3mm....

They just couldn't t get those last .3mm to a round number?

How French of them.
Aug 21 2013 2:06PM
3 0
profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
Lol, trust me I would if I could.
Aug 21 2013 8:52PM
1 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
before too many people recommend the 11-16, i'm going to let you know that i find mine too wide for a lot of landscapes. there's definitely been times where i'm glad to have the 11mm, but something in the range of 12-24 is suited better for landscapes imo. my dad has the nikkor 12-24 f/4 and i love that. i end up shooting a lot of landscapes on my 16-85 since i find myself wanting around 20mm a lot.
not saying the 11-16 is a bad lens, it's a great lens.
Aug 21 2013 9:23PM
0 1
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
I shoot my landscapes with either a 50mm or 85mm.... Or a 35mm, if I'm feeling crazy.
Aug 22 2013 6:38AM
0 1
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
I never find myself shooting landscapes wider than 35 honestly, and most of the people I know shoot similarly, unless they are looking for lots of sky in their composition or really like that style of having a pronounced foreground object with a landscape background specifically. I would look into saving up for a mid-range zoom and not spend your money on a UWA.
Aug 22 2013 12:45PM
0 1
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Don't buy a UWA. It's one of the most overrated and unnecessary lenses you'll ever get.

I have a 17mm Nikon-mount Tokina lens, that really doesn't serve a whole heck of a lot of purpose. Only a few shots I've ever taken with it have ended up useful, and in most cases, it just serves as a panorama lens. The best use I've got from it are interior shots and cramped places where a 28mm would be slightly too long.

You're more likely to get far better photos out of a 28 or even a 24 equivalent.
Aug 22 2013 4:05PM
0 0
profile picture
buttrapinpirate
Posts: 497 - Karma: 225
Honestly going to FF earlier might benefit your landscapes. It's amazing just HOW much wider my lenses were on a FF body. If you know how, I might also recommend taking shots and stitching them on photoshop (there's an automate tool that will do it for you if you're lazy).

For example, at the time all I had with me was a shitty ass D-40x (got the job done so don't hate) and my 50mm 1.4 AF-D. And I took this. Came out with more resolution than a d800, bitches.

Click for larger image

I cut it like that so it could be printed in three 4ft by 2ft sections to line my hallway under three spotlights. Final composition was 9 photos stitched to a canvas size of 21,000 x 3,000 or 63MP. So I guess all I'm trying to say is that sometimes landscapes can be achieved through different results and not always a high dollar wide angle. However that way is more common and more convenient. Just trying to provide a different look on your current setup to get HUGE prints
Aug 22 2013 5:02PM
0 0
profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
I would love to move up to full frame, but i can't afford it right now and i've had my camera for not even a year so i wont be upgrading for a year or two.


I've been shooting with my stock LENS which has been great, but when I get big prints i just want something sharper. As far as focal length goes, i do find myself wanting something slightly wider to get more foreground to background depth. But when I get the angle right with my 18-55 i achieve this. So the 17-40 would probably be perfect as it is supposed to be sharp, and the focal length will be ok.
Aug 22 2013 7:52PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
dude the 17-40 is ff, it will be tighter than your 18-55
Aug 22 2013 7:55PM
0 1
profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
i don't think you understand how lens measurements work.....

both lenses work on fullframe and on cropped, but on crop sensor it crops the image so if you are using a 50mm, it crops it to 80. THeres no such thing as a full frame lens....
Aug 22 2013 8:21PM
2 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
False, as lenses are made for image sensors smaller then FF and some are made specifically for the larger sensor, there are full frame lenses. Example being a 15mm fisheye, requiring a FF body to make the lens what it is.
Aug 22 2013 9:21PM
1 1
profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
Yes there are lenses made for full frame sensors. But there is no such thing as a "full frame lens" as in the focal length is measured differently than on a cropped like he was saying
Aug 22 2013 9:57PM
0 0
profile picture
skibumb2929
Posts: 1119 - Karma: 1,475
tameron 10-24
Aug 22 2013 11:17PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,246
12-24 is 2.8... and a fucking awesome lens
Aug 22 2013 11:48PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,246
17-40 will be 1mm wider than the wide end of the 18-55

also, to clear up debate, EF-S and other "Crop" lenses still use a FF equivalent their measurements. the 18-55 WOULD be an 18-55mm FOV if it was used on a FF body (but it can not)
Aug 22 2013 11:52PM
2 0
profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
This. I couldn't find a way to put it into words
Aug 23 2013 12:05AM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
I think you're thinking of the 14-24, the DX 12-24 is definitely f/4. I'll post an explanation of what I meant when not on mobile in regards to fx/dx focal lengths. If I take a photo with my 50 1.4 and my 16-85 dx at 50mm the 50 1.4 will be tighter
Aug 23 2013 2:26AM
1 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,246
fuck you are correct about that. derp brain fart
Aug 23 2013 2:32AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Honestly, as nice as something like the 16-35 L, or the 17-40 L would be, it's going to cost you a lot more than any vintage 20mm or wider is going to end up being..

Seeing as with almost any UWA lens, you're shooting at infinity for 99% of your shots, there's no good reason to go with an autofocus lens on a FF body.

It comes out to a 28mm lens on a Crop, but it's still easy as shit to focus with.
Aug 23 2013 3:37AM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,246
show me 3 vintage lenses wider than 20mm

I can think of the 17mm f4 but I dont think there's a canon compatible version? and it ran $400-450 last I checked. For that much you might as well pay an extra $200 for the 17-40 and have flexibility...
Aug 23 2013 10:02AM
1 0
profile picture
loganimlach
Posts: 5132 - Karma: 14,054
i love my 28mm on a full frame for certain landscapes. but it's funny, as i keep getting more and more familiar with shooting i seem to want to shoot narrower and narrower. funny how that works.
Aug 23 2013 10:16AM
2 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
17mm f/4?

And:
Olympus 18mm
Nikon 18mm
Canon 17mm
etc.etc.etc

There's plenty.
Aug 23 2013 2:56PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
There are at LEAST three. and these are just the 3rd party brands.

Tokina 17mm f3.5

Vivitar 19mm f3.8

Tamron Adaptall 17mm f3.5

None should cost over 150. Most of the Vivitars and Tokinas were made in either Pentax, Olympus, or Nikon mounts which are easily adaptable.
Aug 23 2013 3:15PM
0 0
profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
But how sharp would they be? I can't imagine them being sharper than L glass.


Aug 23 2013 8:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Laurent.
Posts: 10056 - Karma: 25,313
L glass is not as sharp as you think it is.
Aug 23 2013 8:40PM
1 1
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
What is sharp to you?

this was taken on my decade-old 1Ds with my Tokina 17mm f3.5 from the early-mid 1980's.

Click for larger image

Click for larger image


C is for cookie, that's sharp enough for me!
Aug 23 2013 8:54PM
1 0
profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
thanks for pics.

Sharper than the stock lens and sharp enough to get big prints of 30+ inches
Aug 23 2013 9:19PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
When you stop it down to f8, it's phenomenal in the corners. even at f5.6 it's really good.
Aug 23 2013 9:52PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
"L" denotes having "low dispersion" glass elements. It helps with abberations, not necessarily sharpness (although L lenses are generally built better, and is better engineered). But not all L glass is perfect, the 17-40 is pretty soft until stopped down from what I've seen.
Aug 25 2013 6:38PM
2 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
No Ultrawide lens is particularly sharp to begin with.

Aug 25 2013 6:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Jiberfish
Posts: 1041 - Karma: 310
+K for the info. I will mostly be shooting with it stopped down anyways as I will be in daylight or using a tripod.
Aug 25 2013 10:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
well.......... I wont even get into it ha
Aug 25 2013 10:36PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
I wouldn't say that. The 17-40 is particularly soft compared to a lot of others.
Aug 28 2013 4:09PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
I think you guys are reading 'particularly sharp' and are reading that as 'not sharp at all and shitty so why would you ever..'

They're sharp, but generally not at sharp throughout the frame as say a 50 or an 85 or any lens that's inherently sharp due to it's far easier optical build. Maybe in the centre, but the corners (which is what actually matters when it comes to the quality in a UWA) are going to be wonkey in comparison. And no, I'm not confusing sharpness with distortion here.
Aug 28 2013 4:30PM
0 0
profile picture
RileySnyderPhoto
Posts: 688 - Karma: 1,451
Honestly I think a regular WA would be better for landscapes as TWoods said. I use my 16-35 for skiing and stars and some random landscapes. I did use it more as a landscape and general lens when I was on crop though because it was more like the 24-70 range. Invest in good glass, makes a larger difference than the body.
Aug 28 2013 5:06PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)